i am SyedNaqib’s web journal
I found this website from themaclawyer blog. Wordle generates word clouds from the words that you enter or words that appear on your page or blog. When i entered the URL of this blog, the following word cloud appeared. Try it out!
And so i was asked about the use of a Power of Attorney. In a nutshell, a person can appoint an agent to act on his behalf acts which he is capable of performing himself such as entering into contracts or negotiating on the principal’s behalf and so on. A Power of Attorney (PA) is a document that formalizes this relation between the agent and the principal and stipulates the powers that are given to the agent.
It can be an unlimited PA giving the agent power to do all acts capable of being done by the principal, or a limited PA for a specific purpose. It can be a revocable PA or an irrevocable one, depending on the terms within the PA.
The existence of a PA would basically make any arrangement between the agent and third parties clearer as the third party could always refer to the PA to look at the extent of the powers conferred upon the agent. It would likely reduce the possibility of a dispute, and lessen the need to verify with a principal on whatever the agent claims it is capable of doing on the principal’s behalf. The procedures and instruments in creating a PA is governed by the Power of Attorney Act 1948. A valid PA, says the Act, would have to be duly executed and authenticated, and a copy deposited in the Senior Assistant Registrar’s office at the High Court.
And yet, there are also circumstances where the PA is misused.
It is not unheard of that desperate PA holders would approach third parties to propose a transaction when in fact the principal had died and the PA document had become void, in the case of a revocable PA. There are also circumstances when the PA sells a land on the principal’s behalf and take the bulk of the proceeds, giving only a small portion of it to the principal, as the contract was signed between the agent and a third party. Despite the obvious good that it brings, one can never be to careful in dealing with someone claiming to be a PA holder.
Generally when the name Kublai Khan is mentioned, the picture that comes across is of a barbaric nomadic leader of the Mongols who killed mercilessly to conquer the world, or so is the picture that is portrayed to us by the the various sources that we may have come to view or read.
Enter the author John Man with his book. We’ll find from his writing that he tried to give a picture that was whole about Kublai by describing the various aspects of his life and his rise to power. His style of writing is quite relaxed and enjoyable as he incorporates his narration with his own travel experience while doing research. And the author’s way of explaining other facts of history that may seem unrelated at first is quite fascinating.
Kublai was a leader who’s similar to his grandfather Genghis and yet is different in so many ways. As the book describes it, China today owes a lot of it’s geographic enormity to Kublai. Kublai was the emperor who conquered and consolidated the various territories that now we call China, and established the Yuan dynasty. He knows talent when he sees one, and was not afraid to have people smarter than him around to assist in managing the empire. And as the Mongol rule stretched as far as to eastern Europe and the Middle East, he has had people from various origins holding important posts under him; Arabs holding high ranking military and administrative positions, Chinese advisers, and possibly European governors.
For those who are captivated by history and interested to know some of the events that shaped the world, the book is a good read. I can safely say that when you’ve finished reading the last page, you will realize that you didn’t actually know a lot of things that you thought you knew about the whole Mongol episode.
The media has been abuzz lately with comments regarding the issue on whether the video Sajak Kematian should be shown to primary school students. The clip was intended to educate the kids about life after death i.e what they will face after death if they chose to live an irresponsible life. The clip is slightly less then eleven minutes, and starts with the carrying of a man’s coffin to the grave.
News on TV quoted that the intention of it all was to curb social ills that has been uncontrollable as of late, by explaining to the children at a very young age that they will to be accountable for whatever they chose to do in their life. That it is all about responsibilty. And one day we will pay for our wrongs.
Which has brought mixed reactions from several quarters. Some say it’s suitable for PG13 viewers, some say not. Some say it’s an approach that suits the modern age and would be effective to attract the youngsters’ attention and send the message through. While the Minister, in making his stand, has stressed that he doesn’t agree with the approach and ordered it to stop, saying “…cara kita nak mendidik mestilah secara berhemah dan pendekatan-pendekatan yang menakut-nakutkan lebih-lebih lagi anak-anak kita pada usia yang cukup muda saya rasa tidak akan membawa apa-apa manafaat…”.
Personally, i think children nowadays are exposed to a lot more scarier and inappropriate shows on TV than we would care to bother. But whether this is the answer to the problems that we are facing today, one wouldn’t know, especially when the initiative has been stopped. But if it comes to a point where someone comes up with something that might work (and it may not be this), what are we actually afraid of then, really?
What do you think?
The law provides that a contract made under Coercion, Undue Influence, Fraud, Misrepresentation or Mistake can have one of two effects; either it is invalid from the very beginning, or may be invalidated by the contracting party. What effect the events mentioned have over a contract will be explained in the following paragraphs.
Section 19(1) of the Contracts Act 1950 states that contracts made under coercion, fraud or misrepresentation (agreements made without free consent) is voidable at the option of the party wronged. An exception to this is when such consent was caused by misrepresentation or fraud by silence, where the party whose consent was so caused had the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence, the contract is not voidable.
However, it should be borne in mind that a fraud or misrepresentation which did not cause the consent to a contract of the party being defrauded or to whom the misrepresentation was made, does not render a contract voidable.
As the examples given by the Act itself clearly states, if a person sells a factory to another person representing that it can produce 500 products a day when in fact it can only produce 400, the contract is voidable. But if the person buying the factory had checked the factory documents and had known that the factory could only produce 400, and still bought the factory, the contract is not voidable.
Next, regarding a contract made under undue influence. Such a contract is voidable at the option of the wronged party. It may be set aside absolutely, or if the wronged party has received any benefit, upon terms and conditions as deemed fit by the court.
An example stated in section 20 of the Contracts Act is when A, a moneylender, advances $100 to B, an agriculturist, and, by undue influence, induces B to execute a bond for $200 with interest at 6 per cent per month. The court may set the bond aside, ordering B to repay the $100 with such interest as may seem just.
Finally, the Act also states that a contract entered into when both parties are under a mistake of fact is void.
The fact must be a fact essential to the agreement and not merely an opinion such as an erroneous opinion as to the value of the subject matter of the agreement.
As an example, A agrees to sell his car to B, but unknown to both, A’s car was stolen before the time of the agreement and its parts dismantled and sent to various locations. The agreement is void.
Copyright © 2010 theBlog All rights reserved. Theme by Laptop Geek.